XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.socialism, alt.po
itics.libertarian
XPost: talk.politics.libertarian
From: fred@fredwilliams.ca
On Monday 02 June 2008 19:20, PeterBP wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
>> When the people *are* the state, there is no problem with
>> them being dependent on themselves.
>
> That sounds awfully like circular logic combined with wishful thinking
> to me.
>
What other way might there be for people to have control over their own
lives? Every other option I've ever heard of involves oppression, and
violence. People have to have power over their own lives and no one
must be allowed to oppress others. Collective and all inclusive
government is the only answer.
>> When you are totally alone and powerless, then you are really
>> "free,"
>
> Freedom is the antipode of powerlessness.
>
Then people must act together in an organised fashion or they cannot
have freedom. Only together and organised can we have any power, Each
of us struggling in our own way as individuals has hardly any power at
all.
>> but who wants to be totally alone and powerless. There are "free"
>> people starving to death on the streets in the U.S...
>
> What makes them anymore free than the rest of the US, or the world for
> that matter? Do tell.
>
They are not *more* free. They are considered "free" by some because
they are "individuals, but the point I'm making is that it doesn't help
them. They still starve. Again, Only by working together in an
organised fashion can we acquire our freedom. C'mon guys it's not that
complicated.
>> and elsewhere.
>> When people start to work together as a team and provide for each
>> other, that's what we call a social contract.
>
> Right. But the state is not this voluntary banding together, if that
> is what you're implying.
>
It's supposed to be. It's not that now in your country or mine, but
that's what the concept of government is *supposed* to be! It's up to
all the people to work together to see that we make it work!
>> That's how we build
>> society and grow to do things that none of us could do alone.
>
> Yet many people are seemingly along, left by family, friends and
> indeed this brotherly society of yours, and they manage to survive and
> build anyway.
>
Economically they have to interact with others. No one is an island,
and with many people disorganised and seeking their personal interests
only, because of greed or belief in propaganda lies, whatever,... it
has led to the current condition where the government is run on behalf
of a very few of the rich.
>> That's
>> how poor people become strong enough to get out from under the boot
>> heels of the oppressors.
>
> So when are the beggars of the US street rising up against Wall
> Street?
>
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. A violent uprising may not even be
necessary. A good understanding of "Alternative Economics" may be all
that's necessary.
>> Only by solidarity and organisation can we
>> really be free.
>
> You miss the most crucial part of freedom - that this organisation
> must be voluntary. Miss this, and you are merely paying lip service to
> freedom.
>
If it's voluntary, lip service is the best way. You educate people
with words and when they understand they join. Every person who learns
becomes part of the solution. That's how we build freedom;
>> At it mean we owe a debt to our communities and
>> coworkers, but it's a different kind of freedom that means that we
>> have to care about others but also that they care about us.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Freedom means nothing if we're alone, fighting with our
>> neighbours over a few scraps that fall from the master's
>> table.
>
> AS it is today, people are fighting each others over what is in each
> other's pockets, and the means of the fight is done with X'es on
> ballots.
>
There is no candidate who will make this right, and the current corrupt
regime will not give you one... nor me in my country either.
>> Real freedom can only
>> come through some degree of socialism,
>
> What kind of socialism, exactly? I want to hear.
>
"Exactly," is not for me to say, but for everybody to plan together.
That's what socialism is about. I'm just putting forward my ideas and
reading what others have to say. First I think we should do "exactly"
what we're doing, talking the problem over and understanding it. Then
later we may be able to come up with a plan.
>> because what we want is very
>> likely not too different from what our neighbours want.
>
> To a degree this is true.
>
Yay! (;-))
>> So we don't
>> have to fear loosing anything, because we're all working for pretty
>> much the same things. That's what it's about.
>
> Right. So, the 64,000$ question is: Is this purported equal goal of
> humanity a carte blanche for you ro any other man to start running
> other people's lives? Yes or no?
>
Absolutely not. We have to share ideas and examine them and decide not
on who we like or don't like,... not on whether the ideas are our
own,... but on whether the ideas are right, ( and by that I
mean "correct"). Then we can come up with a plan of action that should
in my opinion not even require any violence, but we need a lot of
people on board and there's a lot of explaining and teaching,... and
listening to do.
--
Peace,
Fred
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
